PrepTest 142

Incorrect. Dr. Smith's opinion is that something will "probably" happen, which is a weaker statement than Wells's in the stimulus, so we can rule this answer out.

Incorrect. Professor Willis's opinion is that something "probably" is true, which is a weaker statement than Wells's in the stimulus, so we can rule this answer out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Wells (concert expert) Ð not Poorly promoted → Sell out
not Sell out
Therefore: Probably Poorly promoted

Answer Anticipation:
The argument applies a conditional raised by an expert to a specific concert. Using the contrapositive, the argument reaches a conclusion that since the necessary condition of the expert's rule wasn't present, then the sufficient condition probably wasn't present, as well.

This seems like a straightforward application of a conditional/contrapositive, but there are two wrinkles to it. The first is that the conditional rule is what an "expert" is certain of. It's unclear if Wells's expertise is sufficiently broad to accept her rule as truth. And the argument reflects that—it doesn't conclude the concert was poorly promoted, but that the concert was probably poorly promoted. That lower level of certainty reflects that the premise is an expert's opinion.

Since the expert and the logical force of the conclusion are logically relevant, they should be matched in the correct answer. We need a conditional premise reflecting an expert's opinion, a non-conditional premise applying that conditional, and a conclusion that the conclusion justified by the conditional is "probably" true.

Answer Explanation:
Neighbor (home renovation expert) Ð Properly repaired → not Noticeable
Noticeable
Therefore: Probably not Properly repaired
This answer follows the same conditional structure, and it has the reliance on an expert's opinion matched with a "probably" conclusion. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
For Parallel Reasoning questions, it's important to identify elements of the stimulus that can be quickly checked in the answer to see if there's a match to allow you to make some quick eliminations when there isn't one. However, it's equally important to note elements of the answer choices that don't match the stimulus. Here, we didn't note any "probably"s in the premises of the stimulus. Seeing them in multiple answer choices allowed us to eliminate them before jumping into a time-consuming formal logic diagram.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion is about whether the expert was wrong—that's a mismatch for the stimulus. Second, there are three premises here, not just two. Both are reasons to eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. Yanakita (expert) Ð Properly conducted → Lead in soil
Lead in soil . . . and we can eliminate this answer since it establishes the necessary condition, thus likely leading to an illegal reversal not present in the stimulus.